Raf

They've made the subtitles. Gibson hasn't made up his mind whether or not to use them. He's currently leaning against it, last I checked anyway.

i've never seen a thread where you can add a subject line to replies. Even in this thread, the first two replies have subject lines, so this thread should allow it, right? Well, it don't.

Is it limited to moderators?

The glasses hurt. The effects were disappointing. There was no plot. Nothing made me smile. Nothing made me laugh.

The closest thing to fun was a "beat me over the head with a stick" parallel to The Matrix. But even that lost its luster after the 31st or 32nd reference. (I did half expect to see Keanu Reeves pop in and say "woah.")

A real yawner.

Finally got around to seeing this the other day. What fun!

NNnnnnnnnnnnnOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

It

Just

Won't

Die!!!!!!

Thanks for the legacy.

Thanks for the service.

Thanks for the laughter.

Thanks for the movies.

Thanks for the mentoring.

Thanks for the example.

Yes, thanks for the memories.

I don't think anything could ever stop Mike from liking himself.

:)-->

Actually, Mike, most journalists have the same problem with the word basically, which is basically overused and basically can be eliminated from any sentence without altering the basic meaning of the sentence.

I remember that too.

Wow. Thanks for the compliment.

And good point about "abundant life."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

The Actual Errors thread can get a little trivial at times if you don't keep its purpose in mind. I figure if you can't admit that at least one of those errors is, in fact, an error, then you're just not being honest. Once you admit to yourself that an error is an error, the thread has lost its function. Move on to something more substantive.

The "Official" Actual Errors list

10 things I liked about the Blue Book.

10 problems I had with the Blue Book.

I don't know about thread sizes (after starting "The," who am I to complain about thread sizes?).

But I'll say this: This thread is not about the topic in its title. It's about your overall thesis. That's my observation, anyway. The things that are discussed here are not about the Spiritual/Natural dichotomy and its implications. They're about whether PFAL and the collaterals have replaced the Bible as The Word of God.

So if "Part Two" stays on topic, and this one continues to be about its evolved topic, then having two threads will make sense.

Based on what I've read of the other thread so far, you're already in danger of losing that fight.

"PFAL Reparo!"

HAHAHAHA!

It didn't work? Why, of course not! PFAL ain't broke! How you gonna fix it?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Still, at least he does it on a discussion board. At least he doesn't use this site to shamelessly promote his own.

Raf

True. I almost never post here. But I do pray.

Raf

I think you're all making a strong case that Wierwille was wrong, but no one's made the case yet that he wrote this error down. That's an important part of the criteria.

Here's something that, to my knowledge, doesn't fit the criteria, but is interesting nonetheless. My research on this is not complete, so I'm open to debate on this, but...

In Living Victoriously, Wierwille writes that God is eternal, without beginning or end, but the life we are promised is everlasting, with a beginning, but with no end. That's why we're promised everlasting life, not eternal life.

In truth, "eternal" and "everlasting" are the same word in Greek.

Note that Living Victoriously was posthumously edited and therefore cannot qualify as Wierwille's written work. It's just interesting.

I'm a karaoke addict. Does that count?

Don't worry about the copyright. The owner's my pal.

Oakspear,

As this thread evolved, we tried to look only at errors that are actually in print in the Wierwille canon. So, if you can see in the magazines (which I do not have) or the books (which I do have) where Wierwille wrote what you say about the Godhead-head God, then we might have an actual error (assuming the rest of what you write is not only true, but indisputably so).

Def,

I think I've looked at some of the John Juedes work for this thread's purposes, except I might have credited his source rather than crediting him. I'm not too sure about that.

I know he wrote an interesting challenge to "The Four Crucified," but using a rather loose definition, I consider his conclusions disputable.

I know this got tiresome after a while, but in reality, the whole purpose of this thread was to show that the Wierwille books do not meet Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. They contain the kind of miniscule errors Wierwille said would be enough to cause the Bible to fall to pieces (orthotomounta instead of orthotomeo, for example). They contain baseless speculation with no foundation whatsoever in accepted scripture (David WOULD HAVE beheaded Nathan if he had told any other story). They contain significant misinterpretations of obvious Biblical truths (the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven).

The response to these indisputable errors has been to attack us all as "unfit researchers" intent on finding what's wrong. Of course, that's hardly what we were doing. What we were intent on was proving that there are errors in those books.

The response to these indisputable errors has been a fundamentally dishonest approach that gloats in evading the valid challenges to the inerrancy of the Wierwille breathed word.

I haven't really thought much about returning to this thread because I think its purpose was served. Those who hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed have not shown the ability to honestly and effectively address a single one of these errors, and at least one has bragged about his antipathy toward doing so. The basis is not the quality of the work here, but a false accusation about our motives.

Wierwille's work was not perfect. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not God-breathed. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not intended to replace the Bible as some kind of bizarro-world, "New and Improved Testament." He never claimed it was.

If someone's happy disagreeing with the above paragraph, I say go in peace.

I'll post it in this space only if Mike grants permission. I consider it off topic.

(NOTE: Mike granted permission, sort of. At leas that's my interpretation of his reply...

So, when it comes to "Bible errors," Mike said the following, then applied it to PFAL as you can plainly see...

quote:

---

...the right and proper procedure is to DODGE. Witness if possible, distract, challenge right back, but NEVER consider the error as an error.

I studied this procedure and applied it for many years. I now see it valid for working with PFAL difficulties.

---

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 21, 2003 at 19:01.]

quote:

---

And never admit VP's error was an error, to paraphrase Rafael.

---

Correction, you're paraphrasing Mike. I was quoting Mike, so if you're paraphrasing what I quoted, you're paraphrasing Mike.

I'm deleting this post in response to Ginger's deletions in her post.

I apologize for not answering anything you've ever written to me on the board, and ask that you point to any instance of anything you've said to me on any greasespot thread that I've ignored.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 20, 2003 at 22:20.]

I'm going to dodge and sweep away your inadequately researched antagonistic question.

Sorry for using the word inability.

I should have written "adamant refusal."

I should have written "deliberate decision to dodge, distract, evade, blah blah blah." Whatever, your thread. I was just answering a question.

Nothing to do with Wayworld. In fact, her mere presence might have been enough to frighten the bejeezus out of VPW.

But she really was the queen of Latin music.